DATE: March 22, 2016 CITY OF PISMO BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Jan Di Leo, Planner (805) 773-7088 jdileo@pismobeach.org THROUGH: Matt Everling, Planning Manager APPLICATION: Administrative Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review Permit for a greater than 50% addition to an existing legal nonconforming single family dwelling located at 209 Montecito. Applicant: Irene & Greg Rigali. The project is located outside of the Coastal Appeal Zone. APN: 005-242-015; Permit P16-000024. GENERAL PLAN: ZONING DISTRICT: LOCATION: Shell Beach Planning Area (H), Low Density Residential Single Family Residential (R-1), 1983 Zoning Code Southeast of the Shell Beach Road/Montecito Avenue intersection. See Exhibit 1 for a vicinity map. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a two-story, 1,475-square-foot addition to an existing one-story, 1,336 square foot legal nonconforming single family residence. Other project components include a roof deck and a tandem garage. Access to the site is provided by Montecito Avenue. The 1983 Zoning Code and active Planning Commission interpretations require that when a property owner proposes greater than a 50% addition that the nonconforming portions of the building be brought up to current zoning code standards. The applicant is requesting that the project not be held to this standard because meeting current code requirements would require that portions of the existing structure be moved or removed. Since the project would be Page 1 of 20
inconsistent with City requirements and active Planning Commission interpretations, staff is recommending denial of the project without prejudice. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & APPLICATIONS Currently site development consists of a 1,092-square-foot single story residence and a 244- square-foot, single car garage. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the current residence. The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing residence at the rear of the home as well as a roof deck (see Figure 2). The new additions include new living areas on the first and second floor, two second floor decks and a roof deck. A portion of the west deck would be covered. See Table 1 for details. Figure 1- Existing Residence 209 Montecito. A view of the existing residence from Montecito Avenue. The garage addition will be located behind the existing one-car garage thereby providing tandem garage parking. The existing residence and garage total 1,336 sf. The proposed additions (to the residence and garage) total 1,475 sf and constitute a roughly 110% addition to the site s current square footage. See Figure 3 for a depiction of the project s floor plan that do not meet current code requirements. STAFF ANALYSIS 1. Consistency with the City s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan. Figure 2- Proposed Residence 209 Montecito. An elevation of the proposed residence from Montecito Avenue. Table 1 Existing & Proposed Components Item Existing (sf) Propose d (sf) Total (sf) First Floor Living Area 1,092 700 1,792 Garage 244 165 409 Second Floor Living Area 0 610 610 Subtotal 1,336 1,475 2,811 2nd Floor Deck (rear) 0 72 72 2 nd Floor Deck Covered 0 100 (West) 248 2 nd Floor Deck 0 148 Uncovered (west) Roof Deck 0 99 99 Page 2 of 20
The City s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan require consistency with the City s zoning code. Since the project is not consistent with the 1983 Zoning Code the project is inconsistent with the City s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. In this case the major concern is zoning code consistency. Figure 3- Floor Plan First Floor. The yellow line marks the proposed 1 st floor addition. The dashed red line is the location of the required 5 setback. The front portion of the existing garage is 9.5 feet wide versus the required 10 width. 2. Consistency with the City s 1983 Zoning Code / Previous Planning Commission Interpretations Regarding Nonconforming Buildings a. Background. The project site is located within the Single Family Zone (R-1) of the Shell Beach Planning Area. Per the 1983 Zoning regulations this property should provide a minimum 5-foot side setback; the existing side setback on the west side is 3.5 feet. The applicant also proposing a rear addition to the existing garage thereby creating a tandem garage. The current requirements for a tandem garage width is 10 feet. The applicant is proposing a width of 9.5 feet. Because the residence does not meet current zoning code standards it is considered legal nonconforming in terms of design. 1 The applicant is requesting an approximately 110% addition to the existing legal nonconforming residence. The Planning Commission provided interpretations on legal nonconforming structures in September 2003 and October 2004. Since that time proposed additions to legal nonconforming structures have been required to conform to this Planning Commission interpretation. b. 1983 Zoning Code/Planning Commission Interpretations. The 1983 Zoning Code indicates the following: 2 1 See Exhibit 3 for an explanation regarding a legal nonconforming use versus a building that is legal nonconforming as to design. 2 The full text of these sections is provided in Exhibit 3. Page 3 of 20
No nonconforming building or structure may be extended to occupy a greater area of land than is occupied at the time of adoption of this title. (Section 17.118.010) Structural alterations of existing structures, either design or arrangement, may be permitted only if such alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth for the district where the building or structure is located. (Section 17.118.050) In the event a nonconforming building is destroyed to the extent of more than fifty percent of its reasonable value it may only be rebuilt consistent with existing regulations. (Section 17.118.070) Active Planning Commission interpretations have provided further direction and clarification when a property must be brought up to current standards. 1 These interpretations require that additions to single family residences that are legal nonconforming as to design 1 within an R-1 zone may be enlarged provided the new addition(s) meet all the standards indicated below: Are consistent with the adopted zoning code standards (e.g., setback, parking, landscaping, height, etc.), Do not make the design less conforming, and Are not greater than 50% of existing floor area. Under this interpretation new additions of less than 50% are allowed provided the addition(s) meets the standards of the zoning code and the new addition does not make the design less conforming. As noted above, the applicant is proposing an approximately 110% addition and requesting that the project not be required to meet current zoning code requirements. Allowing the applicant to build greater than a 50% addition to a residence that is legal nonconforming would be a violation of the zoning code and active Planning Commission interpretations. Since the project is inconsistent with the City s 1983 Zoning Code and active Planning Commission interpretations, staff is recommending denial of the proposed project without prejudice. c. Other Options Available to the Applicant. The applicant may re-apply for an addition that is 50% or less provided the addition(s) conform to the current setback requirements and do not contribute to the structure being more nonconforming. Such a case would be subject to an Administrative Coastal Development Permit and may be approved at the staff level. Under this scenario, the interior dimensions of the existing one-car garage and setback along the west property line may remain as they currently exist. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a Categorical Exemption was issued for the proposed Page 4 of 20
project in accordance with Section 15301 (Class 1) of the CEQA Guidelines, exempting additions in urban areas. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 4) denying Permit P16-000024 without prejudice. Attachment(s): Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Zoning Code Standards / Policies Exhibit 3 Nonconforming Standards Exhibit 4 Resolution Exhibit 4a - Findings Exhibit 5 - Project Plans Page 5 of 20
EXHIBIT 1 VICINITY MAP Page 6 of 20
EXHIBIT 2 ZONING CODE STANDARDS/POLICIES Table 2-1 Zoning Code Development Standards Single Family Residential (R-1) Item Permitted/Required Code Section Proposed Complies? Lot area Minimum 5,000 sf 17.102.060 B 4,746 SF Yes - existing Maximum Building Height Lot coverage Max building floor area Ratio Minimum Front yard setback Side yard setback Rear yard setback Landscaping Minimum parking spaces 2 nd Floor/1 st Floor ratio Shell Beach 25' when measured from the highest point of roof above center of the building footprint at natural grade 55% Maximum. Allowed: 2,610 sf 86% first 2,700 sf of lot area, & 60% for remainder of lot area. Allowed: 3,549 sf 20% of the average lot depth (0.20 * 95 = 19 ). Allowed: 19 setback (for residence; 20 for garage 10% lot width; min 4' & max. 5 Lot width = 49.97 Required: 5 feet minimum 10% of lot depth; min 5' & max. 10 (lot depth 95 ) Required: 9.5 feet minimum 20% of lot area Required: 949 sf Single Family Dwelling: 2 spaces within a garage Garage minimum 20 x 20 Tandem Garage allowed subject to findings. Typical size 10 x 40 2 nd floor cannot exceed 80% of 1 st Floor including garage. Proposed 1 st Floor = 1,792; 2 nd Floor cannot exceed 80% or 1,433 SF 2 nd story stepped back a minimum of 30% along front setback 17.102.010 A 24 feet Yes 17.102.080 B 2,201 SF Yes 17.102.090 B 2,811 SF Yes 17.102.020 (D, 2) 17.102.030 A 19 feet residence; 20 feet garage R=3 6 L=5 17.102.040 (A) 9 6 Yes R - No L-Yes Yes 17.102.095 (B) 1,650 SF (34%) Yes Tandem 17.108.020 A proposed Unclear 9 6 X 40 New garage 17.108.030 would have 10 A7 width 17.105.135 2 nd floor = 600 Yes sf GP/LCP LU-H-4a (b) >30% of 2 nd story front façade setback Yes Page 7 of 20
Page 8 of 20
EXHIBIT 3 LEGAL NONCONFORMING STANDARDS Table 3-1 Zoning Code Standards - Nonconforming Uses & Structures 17.118.010 Uses existing before effective date of zoning ordinance. Except as otherwise provided in this Title, uses of land, buildings or structures existing at the time of adoption of this Title or its predecessor ordinance may be continued although the particular use, or the building or structure, does not conform to the regulations specified by this Title for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made. No nonconforming use may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Title. 17.118.050 Existing nonconforming structures--structural alterations. Structural alterations including enlargement and extensions of any building or structure existing at the date of the adoption of this Title, if nonconforming in either design or arrangement, may be permitted only if such alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Title for the district where the building or structure is located. Any alteration which exceeds two hundred square feet in floor area shall require architectural review. The city planner may approve such alteration in the R-1 and R-2 zones. Alterations in all other zones require the approval of the planning commission as provided for in Chapter 17.121. 17.118.070 Destroyed buildings. A nonconforming building verified to have been destroyed to the extent of more than fifty percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or Act of God, may be restored, reconstructed and used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. Provided, however, that any single family R-1 nonconforming use may be rebuilt on it original foundation by only the owneroccupant at that time of destruction within a period of one year from the time of destruction, regardless of the percentage of destruction. Table 3-2 Explanation Nonconforming Use & Nonconforming as to Design (Staff) The Zoning Code discusses basically two types of nonconformities: buildings and uses. In both cases these are often buildings or structures built prior to adoption of the local zoning code and/or existed when the site s zoning changed. One type is a nonconforming use the other type is nonconforming as to design. Legal Nonconforming Use: An example of a legal nonconforming use would be an existing single family residence located within an area zoned industrial. Per the zoning code residential uses are not a permitted use in an industrial zone. Thus the existing residence would be considered a legal nonconforming use. Legal Nonconforming as to Design: A building that is legal nonconforming as to design is typically a permitted use in that zoning designation; however, the design or specifications are inconsistent with the current zoning code. An example would be a single family residence built 3 feet from a side property line whereas the current zoning code regulations require a 5-foot setback. In such a case the proposed use is conforming and/or permitted by the zoning code; however, the design (setbacks) are inconsistent with the code requirements. Page 9 of 20
It is possible that you can have a legal nonconforming use that also does not meet the design standards of that zone. In both cases the intent is that the nonconformity become conforming over time. Thus, additions to legal nonconforming buildings are regulated. Page 10 of 20
EXHIBIT 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC-R-2016- PROJECT NO. P16-000024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 110% ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 209 MONTECITO AVENUE; APN: 005-242-015 WHEREAS, Irene and Greg Rigali the "Applicant" has submitted an application to the City of Pismo Beach for a Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review Permit for an approximately 110% addition to an existing legal nonconforming single family dwelling; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on March 22, 2016 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the proposed addition to the existing single family residence and other associated improvements are exempt per CEQA Section 15301. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pismo Beach, California as follows: The Planning Commission does hereby deny without prejudice the Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review Permit subject to the findings indicated in Exhibit 4a. UPON MOTION of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner the foregoing Resolution is hereby approved and adopted the 22nd day of March, 2016, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: APPROVED: ATTEST: Chairman Kathy Schwartz Administrative Secretary Page 11 of 20
Page 12 of 20
EXHIBIT 4a FINDINGS A. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. The project consists of a Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review Permit for a 1,475 square foot addition to an existing 1,336 square foot single family dwelling. 2. There proposed project does not create the potential for significant environmental impacts as a result of the construction of the proposed project. 3. The Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review Permit for the proposed additions is exempt under CEQA Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, exempting additions in urban areas. B. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT: 1. The proposed project would allow for the continuation of a legal nonconforming side yard setback along the west property line and, as a result, will not be compatible with adjacent structures. 2. Although the architecture is compatible, the proposed project will not remedy a side yard setback that is not compatible or consistent with required setbacks within the immediate neighborhood. 3. The proposed development with related improvements is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and General Plan Land Use category of Low Density Residential in that the project perpetuates a legal nonconforming side yard setback. 4. The proposed development with related improvements is incompatible with the nearby existing uses and is detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area of the proposed project in that the project perpetuates a legal nonconforming side yard setback. 5. The proposed development with related improvements is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area composed of single family residential units and is inconsistent with the zoning of the project site. 6. The proposed project will affect the orderly development of the surrounding area allowing the applicant special privileges not afforded to other development in the area. 7. The proposed development with related improvements will impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the vicinity in that the project perpetuates a legal nonconforming side yard setback. 8. The height, bulk, and scale of the building is incompatible with the adjacent area Page 13 of 20
and with the view and other Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan considerations. Page 14 of 20
EXHIBIT 5 PROJECT PLANS - ELEVATIONS Page 15 of 20
Page 16 of 20
PROJECT PLANS FLOOR PLANS LOWER FLOOR Page 17 of 20
PROJECT PLANS FLOOR PLANS Page 18 of 20
UPPER FLOOR Page 19 of 20
Page 20 of 20